right, but the difference fits with the distinction I made. For the MF, unemployment at the "natural" rate of unemployment is "frictional," due to allegedly natural frictions that prevent market equilibration. (As you say, the existence of unemployed workers corresponds to the presence of vacancies.) For Marx, on the other hand, unemployment is a social creation and does not correspond to vacancies (it is thus akin to the cyclical or deficient-demand unemployment seen by Keynesians). However, as I said, both of these views posit barriers to the economy attaining full employment where everyone has a job.
On 4/13/06, Mário José de Lima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Because the notion of unemployment of Friedman pressuposes the existence of > not filled ranks of work. Friedman is thinking about unemployment > frictional. Marx does not think about frictional unemployment. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jim Devine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 2:42 PM > Subject: Re: interesting quote > > > I wrote: > > "The natural rate of unemployment is in some ways similar to Marx's idea > > of > > the reserve army of the unemployed. Marx saw capitalism as requiring some > > minimum amount of unemployment to prosper (though Kalecki pointed out that > > this wasn't necessary under fascism; some argue that social democracy can > > lower this, too). For Friedman, capitalism is natural, so it's Nature that > > requires a minimum amount of unemployment." > > On 4/13/06, Mário José de Lima wrote: > > I disagree with this point of view. The Marx's argument is very > > different > > of the Friedman's argument. / Mário > > why am I wrong? > -- > Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence > of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles > -- Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles
